So says Ari Shavit, an Israeli columnist for Haaretz, writing in the New York Times. It’s all because Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan instead of mounting a “diplomatic campaign against Iran” (elsewhere described as a “political-economic campaign” of the sort directed against Libya’s nuclear project) after the attacks of 9/11. So far as I can tell, he’s talking about a campaign to force Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program (there’s no mention of regime change). An ambitious international campaign, in which Bush should have enlisted the European Union, Russia, Sunni Arabs and Israel.

If we had done that, Mr. Shavit says, Iran would have been forced to abandon their nuclear project, the United States would have been spared the loss of life and wealth in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we wouldn’t be where we are today: exhausted, traumatized, with “a limited attention span for problems in the Middle East.”

This has to go down as one of those ideas that only an intellectual could embrace. The United States has just been attacked. What was the president supposed to do? According to Mr. Shavit, Bush should have said “we’ve got three thousand dead, there are smoldering buildings in New York and Washington, but not to worry, I’m going to talk to the Arabs, the Russians and the Europeans in order to force the Iranians to stop working on nukes. I’ll get back to you with progress reports when and if I have news.”

W would have been a laughing stock, an object of derisive contempt, a caricature of Jimmy Carter, who, after the Iranian attack on our Tehran Embassy in 1979, carried out Mr. Shavit’s policy recommendations to near-perfection. Carter slapped sanctions on Iran, organized international support, and started negotiating.

It didn’t work out very well for him or for the United States. In 1979, there was no doubt we’d been attacked by Iranians. In 2001, nobody thought the Iranians were involved in the assaults in New York and Washington. So why in the world would anyone think that a political/diplomatic/economic campaign against Iran was a proper response?

I can offer but two simple facts to augment your wonderful refutation of Mr. Shavit. First, America’s military effort worked: 9-11 did not have a dramatic sequel (yet). Second, as you note in your The Big Deal on the Road to War column above, Iran tried to revolt (“in 2009, when the regime was wobbling and millions of Iranians filled the country’s avenues…”). You are the expert, who hopefully can confirm the Iranians did not have an excellent chance to revolt until 2009. The point is they got the chance to do so, until the brave ones suffered like those at the Bay of Pigs since an American president chose to scorn them.

Yes, President George W Bush is a great but unfortunately, life is not fair! Despite some strategic mistakes was committed by Mr. Bush's administration during the occupation of Iraq but President W. Bush remains a strong and more determine leader. He did not hesitate to make the tough and fateful decisions whether Congress approves or not. Under his leadership the international community feared him and widely feared the United States, his enemies were hunted to the ends of the earth. President W Bush never apologised for America’s past actions for his enemies as Mr. Obama humiliatingly do. Mr. W Bush did not compromise on the US security, while under Mr. Obama’s leadership, the United States now appears significantly weaker and far more vulnerable, which has made her in unrespected position in the world because he serving to weaken America’s standing in the world and strengthen the brutal fist of her enemies, his naive engagements with the odious dictatorial regimes that wish the destruction of America and Israel prove that he is an a great advocate for those evil regimes. Today he and his friends in Washington are praising the failed and humiliating historic agreement between the USA and her greatest enemy for more than three centuries. Yes, they just slapped sanctions as Mr. Carter did before. Mr. Obama lied to Americans only in order to get the presidency.

With all due respect: Iraq was invaded to keep Iraqi oil (2nd largest world supply) off the market..Libya: invaded to minimize their oil coming to market & to steal their oil dollars...that extra 8+ million barrels per day (Iran + Iraq +Libya) would plummet oil prices; The USA preserves in power: the dictators that parade as religious in Iran at all cost (since 1979), specifically to create the atmosphere for weapons sales; Yes: for the Commuless Moscow Weapons Company (aka Russia) and the USA, the goal is petro-dollars for weapons... and $30/bbl oil will not be enough to finance the those weapons: "Have Wars Will Travel"...

I think that narrative is closer to the actual market conditions and: it understands, explains and most of all predicts what we are observing!

"after the Iranian attack on our Tehran Embassy in 1979, carried out Mr. Shavit’s policy recommendations to near-perfection. Carter slapped sanctions on Iran, organized international support, and started negotiating."

The biggest mistake of the last quarter of the 20th century by that feckless wuss, Carter. Iran should have been hit hard and fast. Pause for a warning that if the hostages are not on the next plane out completely unharmed the party begins and when its over they will never pump oil nor sell it anywhere ever.The world would be a better place today if carter had had a pair, Sadly he only had peanuts.

what's that def. of insanity I keep hearing about? repeating the same wrong headed action over and over and expecting a different outcome each time? yeah, that sounds about what people are doing here. following the disaster that is 0-bama over and over again down the same eventual path to destruction. what has this clown done right? sane people would be looking down another path. maybe seeing what he has to say, and then doing the opposite would be a good idea somewhere down this road to oz.

hint: if this were a casino everybody would be waiting to see how he was betting, for sure. of course, when you constantly lose as if cursed, its good to be playing w/ somebody else's $$.

Ari Shavit is on TV frequently here. He's a personable guy, very smooth, speaks for the Tel Aviv 'landed classes' more or less. That he believes Obama was right to pressure Israel over settlements is, you know, kind of a giveaway. The Ari Shavit's enjoy the comforts, and believe peace is just a concession or two away. He's really not worth writing an article about, and he does not represent more than about 15-20% of Israeli opinion, if that much.

To be a Leftist is to live in a very different world. It is not reality challenged. You may it up as you go along. That is what makes the press so venal whether in America or Israel. It is dominted by Leftists. It is a world in which they are the angels and can do wrong, and everyone else is the devil and can do no right.

Dreaming up ridiculous theories, telling outright lies, and committing felonies are the kinds of things leftists have to do these days to save what’s left of Obama’s body armor, I mean, administration—somebody has to do it. More power to this guy in Israel if he wants to make a buffoon of himself—and by extension the left—for the Bamster’s sake.